------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 22 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Language in use
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: fonts
From: "Jonathyn Bet'nct" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Xinkutlan 1- Phonology
From: "Adam F." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: What did Rodlox do? (was: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like
comments. :)
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Unqualified Appology
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: fonts
From: Simon Richard Clarkstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Dyirbal?
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Unqualified Appology
From: Rene Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: English l and Spanish ll
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Introduction
From: Rene Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: English l and Spanish ll
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: This is not a conlang and VOYNICH
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Dyirbal?
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:32:50 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
Ray Brown scripsit:
> >3) The trigger NP is not itself marked for semantic role; it is either
> >unmarked or it is given a semantically neutral mark meaning "this is
> >the trigger".
>
> Like Tagalog _ang_ or _si_, i guess.
Just so.
> >>[In the answer "Ein Buch" is the topic; the focus is "zum Geburtstag".
(I sensed something a little odd about this before, but didn't know what.)
It seems very strange to have an indefinite NP as the topic, since the
topic is presupposed information, unless indeed "ein Buch" can mean here
"a certain book" = "a particular book I'm not naming". "Das Buch" would
be a much more natural topic.
> > Was das Buch angeht, das hat sie ihm ZUM GEBURTSTAG geschenkt.
And indeed this version does show "das Buch".
> Oh dear. This quite the opposite that I have been understanding from Pablo'
> s web-page and from John. I had understood that the NP marked with 'ang'
> or 'si' was the _trigger_, not the target.
The form I'm using here is what I learned from the article on Tagalog
by Paul Schachter in Comrie ed., _The World's Major Languages_, which
very clearly explains the terminology and the reasons behind it (and is
the ultimate source of any clarity in *my* explanations).
> >Those that do not have a trigger affix:.
>
> Now should we be speaking of the 'trigger affix' or the 'triggered affix'.
"Triggered affix", technically. But "trigger affix" is common form.
> But you are saying the NP is the target. Are you saying the affix is the
> trigger or is the verb+affix? I suppose it triggers the target by causing
> the target to loose its role marking & to be marked with _ang_ or _si_.
There is nothing impossible about this analysis, but it's not the conventional
one. If we analyzed English subject-verb agreement by saying that the use
of "am" as a verb triggers the subject pronoun "I", we'd quickly get into
perversities, but the Tagalog situation is more symmetrical. Whether the
NP triggers the verb agreement (as is usually said) or the verb triggers the
use of a non-semantic particle on the NP is a more theoretical question.
Nevertheless, we conventionally say that the NP triggers the verb, just as
in English.
> Sorry, I do not follow how we can have a _trigger affix_ and a _trigger
> particle_. Either the NP is the trigger or the verb is the trigger. Either
> the affix or the particle is being _triggered_. I am finding the current
> terminology confusing.
"Trigger particle" is the particle marking the trigger as such. "Trigger
affix", which as you say should be "triggered affix", is the affix specifying
the semantic role of the trigger.
==========================================================================
ObConlang: The engelang Voksigid is a non-trigger, semantic-case-marking,
verb-first language with an interesting relation to the ones we've been
discussing. Like Tagalog, it uses prepositions to mark the semantic
functions of the NPs. For example, "tor" marks an actor, and "tum" a
benefactee. But these same prepositions are *also* used as suffixes to
derive nouns from verbs, and all nouns (except names) are in fact
so derived. So:
dona tor donator tum donatum
Give (with-actor) giv-er (with-benefactee) giv-ee.
The giver gives to the recipient of the gift.
or more naturally
dona tor cercetor tum brodalen
Give (with-actor) seek-er (with-benefactee) be:brother-one
The seeker gives to (his) brother.
The suffix "-len", which I have glossed "-one" above, converts a stative
verb ("be a brother") in this case to a noun referring to something in
that state.
Voksigid details at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141/voksigid.html .
--
"But the next day there came no dawn, John Cowan
and the Grey Company passed on into the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
darkness of the Storm of Mordor and were http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
lost to mortal sight; but the Dead http://reutershealth.com
followed them. --"The Passing of the Grey Company"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:35:01 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
Ray Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 08:07 , Roger Mills wrote:
> > In the Listserv Archive, see msg. #78359 of Jan.13, 2003, for some
> > examples
> > from the Tsou lang. of Taiwan;
>
> Haven't tracked it down yet - but it seems there was a quite a thread
> going on at the time about triggers etc.
Put "Tsou" in the topmost search box; my email in 2003 was [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that will narrow down the search.
-------------------------------
>
> [snip]
> > Basically you can have: Agent focus - goal/patient focus - location
> > focus
> > -
> > instrument focus - benefactive/dative focus. (Not every PI language has
> > all
> > possibilities; and sometimes it's hard to come up with a sentence with
> > all
> > the appropriate arguments.) Agent and Goal focus of course correspond to
> > familiar active and passive
>
> So it is _focus_ that we are concerned with, that is *new information* -
> and not the _topic_ under discussion?
Aye, this seems to be the problem. Perhaps we ANists are misusing "focus";
but it's the term that's used.
> > The affix on the verb indicates which focus is being used; the
> > argument-in-focus (loosely, the subject)
>
> This is where confusion can arise. Subjects in unmarked sentences
> correspond to the topic, not the focus.
This may be where Phil.langs. depart from (or confuse) familiar usage. In
Engl. we can passivize on DO's and IO's-- "water was brought for the
family...", "the family was brought water...". Certainly in our terms
"water" and "family" are promoted to subjects(topic) here. OK-- Tag. can
"passivize/promote to subject" more arguments than Engl. can;
so sentences like:
Agent Focus: Bring-AF link woman..... (Engl. "active")
Goal Focus: Bring-GF link water.... (Engl. "passive")
Inst.Focus: Bring-IF link bucket.... (Engl. ???)
Ben. Focus: Brink-BF link family.... (Engl. ???)
are all exactly parallel in Tag.-- AIUI. But what shall we call "bucket"
and "river" in the last two?
-------------------------------------
>
> Is the verbal affix the trigger and the focused NP the target? _or_
> Is the marked NP the trigger and the verb the target?
>
> I cannot help thinking some other terminology would be more helpful. Is
> there indeed an alternative terminology for this feature of Philippine &
> related languages?
I agree totally; "trigger/target" seems to be adding a level of terminology
that is confusing and unncessary, and to my knowledge those terms simply ARE
NOT USED by Philippinists. We'll see what Prof. Naylor uses when she replies
(my msg to her is still in draft, because I have to keep adding
questions...)
------------------------
> >> A bucket was used to bring water from the river by the woman to her
> >> family.
> > Instrument focus: bring/um ta bucket o woman o water do rio o family
> >
> > (It's accidental that the smooth Engl. translation has to be passive; it
> > could be a cleft S: "It was with a bucket that the woman...etc."
>
> The cleft construction does show focus, the passive usually does not.
> However "a bucket" rather than "the bucket" does suggest this is new
> information.
I had overlooked that, and may be wrong. Barry Garcia's latest post mentions
that definite/indefinite does make a difference. Well, one more Q for Prof.
Naylor......(I'd better finish/send that msg before it turns into a PhD
dissertation :-((( )
-------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:49:50 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
Barry Garcia wrote:
> This was never answered with my post about the discovery of a world
> where the sentient life is extinct. So...
>
> How big would a moon orbiting an earth sized (or slightly bigger)
> planet have to be to have a visible atmosphere? Would a moon that size
> cause problems?
>
Good question. In Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" there is just such a system--
the secondary moon/companion planet is habitable (though it's a difficult
environment), and it's where a large group of political dissidents from the
main planet set up their communal society. But the novel is far more
concerned with politics and personalities, so the technical details get
short shrift.
IIRC some of the moons of Jupiter and/or Saturn apparently have atmospheres,
so it's not impossible.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:52:56 +0100
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language in use
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:55:03 -0500, Yann Kiraly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many speakers does Toki Pona have?
Hard to count since there are probably pockets of speakers that learn
from the website or from someone making a presentation but who don't
know anyone else who uses the language.
My wild guess would be 10-50.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:11:25 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
Hi!
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> ObConlang: The engelang Voksigid is a non-trigger, semantic-case-marking,
> verb-first language with an interesting relation to the ones we've been
> discussing. Like Tagalog, it uses prepositions to mark the semantic
> functions of the NPs. For example, "tor" marks an actor, and "tum" a
> benefactee. But these same prepositions are *also* used as suffixes to
> derive nouns from verbs, and all nouns (except names) are in fact
> so derived. So:
>
> dona tor donator tum donatum
> Give (with-actor) giv-er (with-benefactee) giv-ee.
> The giver gives to the recipient of the gift.
Very cool! :-)
> or more naturally
>
> dona tor cercetor tum brodalen
> Give (with-actor) seek-er (with-benefactee) be:brother-one
> The seeker gives to (his) brother.
>
> The suffix "-len", which I have glossed "-one" above, converts a stative
> verb ("be a brother") in this case to a noun referring to something in
> that state.
'brodator' would also be cool, though. :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:35:46 -0800
From: "Jonathyn Bet'nct" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: fonts
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:37:45 -0800, Lupin Wolfe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, anyone on this list good at making fonts? A friend of mine is making a
> language called Umekan. It sort of has a Japanese feel and sound. I have a
> pic of the symbols the language uses. He doesn't know I'm doing this; I'm
> going to surprise him. Someone please answer me soon.
> THNX
I'm good at making fonts! Behold!:
http://kreativekorp.dyndns.org/software/fonts/
You can send me the symbols and whatever you want to appear as part of
the copyright notice and I can make the font for you.
--
Hasta la pasta,
Jonathyn Bet'nct.
--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_
I tried the real world once; didn't really care for it.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:49:55 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
Quoting Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Barry Garcia wrote:
>
> > This was never answered with my post about the discovery of a world
> > where the sentient life is extinct. So...
> >
> > How big would a moon orbiting an earth sized (or slightly bigger)
> > planet have to be to have a visible atmosphere? Would a moon that size
> > cause problems?
> >
> Good question. In Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" there is just such a system--
> the secondary moon/companion planet is habitable (though it's a difficult
> environment), and it's where a large group of political dissidents from the
> main planet set up their communal society. But the novel is far more
> concerned with politics and personalities, so the technical details get
> short shrift.
>
> IIRC some of the moons of Jupiter and/or Saturn apparently have atmospheres,
> so it's not impossible.
Well, only Titan has got a worthwhile one - the others are extremely tenuous.
It's worth noting that Titan's greater distance from the Sun gives it an easier
time retaining an atmosphere than a similar-mass object at the Earth's distance
would have. OTOH, something at the Earth's distance with Titan's radius would
probably have a greater mass, which would to some degree compensate.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:54:14 -0800
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 03:15:34PM +0000, Ray Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 08:36 , H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >My apologies, in my own confusion I've erroneously tried to
> >rationalize Tatari Faran as a trigger language. This obviously is
> >incorrect, and only caused more confusion that it dispels.
>
> No matter - it is certainly helping me to crystalize ideas on what
> "Philippino triggerism" really is and is not. It is a truism that we learn
> from mistakes :)
Indeed.
[...]
> >I think the confusion arises from the overloaded meanings of 'focus'
> >and 'topic'. At least in this thread, I believe we're using these
> >terms to refer to the function of the Philippine trigger rather than
> >'focus' or 'topic' in the general linguistic senses.
>
> I think this is probably so. This is why I pointed out to Mr Pehrson with
> his "A Bit of Flame" why it is useful to define terms. Otherwise we finish
> up talking at cross-purposes which does not help one bit.
Indeed. Which reminds me of the unfortunate fact that I've yet to find
the appropriate terms to describe how Tatari Faran really works. I
suppose there is no shortcut; I just have to sit down and write out
formal definitions for all the terminology used. (And perhaps get
clearer myself about how it works in the process of doing so.)
> I understand:
> topic = "that element of a sentence which is presented as already existing
> in the discourse and which the rest of the sentence ('the _comment_) is
> about". Some people prefer the terms _theme_ and _rheme_ rather than
> _topic_ and _comment_.
Interesting. But to clarify: does this "topic" refer necessarily to an
*explicit* element in the sentence, or does it refer also to an
implied topic of converstion which one derives from the surrounding
context?
> focus = "Special prominence given to some element in a sentence which
> represents the most important new information in the sentence or which is
> explicitly contrasted with something else."
Hmm. Under this definition, the fronted NP in Tatari Faran does not
qualify as "focus", since it does not necessarily present new
information. Perhaps "subject" is most appropriate, as John describes
below?
> It has not so far been clear from this current thread whether we are
> talking about topic or about focus (in their conventional linguistic
> senses) or about something else specifically peculiar to the "Philippino
> triggerism" construction.
>From what I'm gleaning from this discussion, the use of "topic" or
"focus" to define the Philippino trigger is inaccurate. As John
eloquently points out, the Philippino trigger is a syntactic marking,
and so ought not to be confused with "topic" or "focus" in the
semantic sense. Perhaps sometimes it happens to coincide with the
topic, and other times it happens to coincide with the focus; but one
ought not to jump the gun and conclude it is equal to one or the
other.
[...]
> >Actually, I think I'm the one responsible for the confusion between
> >fronting and triggers.
>
> You may be :)
:-)
[...]
> >http://www.angelfire.com/ego/pdf/ng/lng/how/how_wordorder.html#trigger-systems
>
> Yes, thanks. I understood everything Pablo wrote :)
> I also notice the 'focused' NP comes last, as you said. It is also
> interesting to note that according to Pablo, the NP is the trigger and
> therefore, I assume, the "nominalized verb" at the beginning of the
> sentence is the target. Interesting.
Probably the term "focused" is a bit risky here, since it seems to
collide with your understanding of "focus". Perhaps a better term
would be "overtly marked NP"? (Although, that sounds a bit too
unspecific. Terminology can be such a stumbling block sometimes.)
[...]
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 08:36 , John Cowan wrote:
[...]
> >In a trigger language:
> >
> >1) There is a distinguished NP conventionally called the "trigger" in
> >every sentence:
>
> Yes. I understand this now.
>
> >calling it the subject, the focus, or the topic (as used
> >to be often done and sometimes still is) is misleading, because its role
> >is purely syntactic.
>
> Ah!! Yes, it is a bit misleading applying semantic terms like 'topic' &
> 'focus' to a purely syntactic feature. "subject" on the other hand is a
> syntactic label; I suppose if the NP is analyzed as the grammatical
> subject, the analysis of the verb will be different from the analysis
> given by Pablo and below by you.
Out of curiosity (and a desire to truly understand), what is the
precise definition of "subject"? What properties must an NP satisfy in
order to be correctly called a subject? Would it be valid to say that
the fronted NP in Tatari Faran is a subject? Or should I perhaps coin
a totally new term for it?
> > It may be and often is the focus, but it can also
> >be the topic, or be neither topic nor focus.
>
> Right! A bit like the grammatical subject in European languages which is
> often the topic, but need not be - can also be the focus or be neither
> topic nor focus :)
Which then suggests to me that "subject" is perhaps the most
appropriate term for the fronted NP in Tatari Faran. However, then
that leads to the difficult question of how to explain the other NP's
that follow the verb. I'm doubtful if "object" would be an appropriate
term. What is the accepted understanding of "object"?
[...]
> >Most trigger languages are strictly verb-first, so the verb affix tells
> >the listener what role the trigger NP will have.
>
> That makes sense. The fronting was a Tatari Faran "red herring" :)
Yes it was. :-)
[...]
> >Yes, and it appears that Tatari Faran has no concept of topic/focus -
> >treating them both the same way, which is a tad confusing IMO.
> >
> >It has focus but not topic AFAICT.
>
> Yes, I am inclined to agree - it did remind me quite a bit of Welsh in
> that respect.
Hmm. Could it be that the confusion arises from my mistaken use of
semantic terms (topic/focus) to describe the fronted NP, when it is
really only a syntactic feature?
[...]
> Aw! Just when I thought I got this triggering business sorted as well.....
Ah, the wonders of natlangs. :-)
[...]
> On Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 02:50 , B. Garcia wrote:
[...]
> >Yes. If a noun is marked with ang for nouns and si for proper names
> >(in Tagalog) it IS the focus of the verb. Everything else will *not*
> >be the focus of the verb.
>
> "focus of the verb" is rather different 'focus' as I was understanding the
> term. See John's comments above. I think this overloaded use of 'focus'
> has been partly the source of the problem. If we are going to speak of
> triggers, it might be less confusing to use the terms 'trigger' and
> 'target', I think.
Perhaps we should just stop trying to explain the Philippino trigger
in terms of topic or focus, and just called it the "trigger"? Either
that, or we should define exactly what we mean by "focus" or "topic"
when we apply them to triggers.
[...]
> >>2. Is then the target the emphasized element?
> >
> >Yes, because the target (which i assume you mean marked with either
> >ang or si) is the focus of the verb.
>
> Oh dear. This quite the opposite that I have been understanding from Pablo'
> s web-page and from John. I had understood that the NP marked with 'ang'
> or 'si' was the _trigger_, not the target.
I think this is because Tagalog has a much more symmetric system than,
say, English, as John pointed out. Is it the verb affix that triggers
a particular marking on the NP, or is it the NP that triggers the
affix on the verb? Perhaps the choice is arbitrary, and it is better
thought of as a *single* compound operation, two sides of the same
syntactic device used to make that NP the "subject" of the sentence.
> >>3. As not all sentences have focus, do 'non-focused' sentences have a
> >>trigger affixed to the verb? If so, why?
> >
> >Non-triggered (meaning they lack a noun that is focused) verbs can
> >either have a trigger affix on the verb, or not.
>
> Now I can see that we are in fact talking at cross purposes. I was using
> 'focus' in the sense of "new information", whereas you are using 'focus'
> to mean the NP to which the verbal affix relates. It is clear the two
> meanings are not the same.
Which is why I propose that perhaps we should avoid using "topic" or
"focus" altogether when talking about the Philippino trigger.
> >Those that do not have a trigger affix:.
>
> Now should we be speaking of the 'trigger affix' or the 'triggered affix'.
> I am not trying to split hairs; I am trying to make sense of the
> construction.
>
> If, as John says, the marked NP is the trigger, then the verb is the
> target and the affix is triggered by the NP. This is something I can
> understand because to a limited extent we have NP targeting verbs in
> European languages; the subject NP triggers verbal agreement, usually a
> particular suffix. In the Bantulangs we may have two NPs targeting the
> same ver, one triggering subject agreement and the other triggering object
> agreement. So I do not find it a quantum leap to find a NP triggering
> role-agreement or role-marking in a target verb.
>
> But you are saying the NP is the target. Are you saying the affix is the
> trigger or is the verb+affix? I suppose it triggers the target by causing
> the target to loose its role marking & to be marked with _ang_ or _si_.
> But I must confess I find this explanation a little harder to follow.
As for me, I see the choice between these two an arbitrary theoretical
choice. So far, they seem to be two sides of the same syntactic
operation to me: there is a particular NP we want to make the
"subject", and the way this is done is to (1) attach a particular
affix to the verb and (2) mark the NP with a particular marker. Unless
there is evidence that one can happen without the other, I see no
reason why we should feel compelled to decide whether it is the NP
that triggers the verb affix or it is the verb affix that triggers the
NP's marking.
[...]
> >They can also have a focused or unfocused noun. When they have a
> >focused noun, the noun is definite. Without one the noun is
> >indefinite.
> >
> >Ex:
> >
> >Gusto ko ng litson - I like lechon (in general)
> >Gusto ko ang litson - I like the lechon (this one in particular)
>
> Which I suppose is why Ms Aspillera calls _ang_ the "definite article".
>
> So _ng_ marks the patient?
I think _ng_ and _ang_ are just two forms of the trigger marker; one
is used for indefinite NPs and the other for definite NPs. I don't
think it has anything to do with patients.
[...]
> >I made the mistake of posting in haste. Where I said "affix on the
> >noun" i really meant the trigger _particle_ . ONLY the verb has the
> >affix. It is that particle which marks what is being
> >emphasized/focused.
>
> Sorry, I do not follow how we can have a _trigger affix_ and a _trigger
> particle_. Either the NP is the trigger or the verb is the trigger. Either
> the affix or the particle is being _triggered_. I am finding the current
> terminology confusing.
I think what he means by "trigger particle" is that marker (_ang_ or
_ng_) that marks the NP as the "trigger NP", and "trigger affix" is
the affix that gets put on the verb to indicate the semantic role of
this NP.
Perhaps we shouldn't even call it "trigger", since the term appears to
have a different definition in general linguistics. Like I said, I see
the two markings as two sides of the same syntactic device to make
that NP the "subject" (or whatever term you want to use - the overtly
marked NP perhaps).
[...]
> He was swimming *under the water*. (Prepositional phrase is emphasized).
> I saw her *yesterday*. (Adverb is emphasized).
> Yes, he actually *bought* it. (Verb is emphasized).
>
> Probably we should not be using the term 'emphasized' when describing the
> 'trigger system'.
Yeah, I think emphasis is orthogonal to trigger marking (in the
Tagalog sense). The trigger NP may sometimes serve as the emphasized
NP, just as it may sometimes serve as the topic or focus, but that is
orthogonal to the trigger marking itself. Maybe "subject" is still the
best term for this NP after all.
[...]
> >If you mean fronting the verb (i am unsure of what the term exactly
> >means),
>
> It would mean putting the verb first in a sentence when that is not its
> normal position. So in "Buying it, is he?" the verb has been fronted. But
> it is clear now that fronting, while a feature of Tatari Faran (and Welsh,
> German & many other langs) is not relevant to the "trigger sustem"
> discussion.
[...]
I think it would be helpful to differentiate between the syntactic
device of trigger marking from the set of possible semantic usages the
NP marked in this way may have. The trigger marking itself is just a
syntactic feature: the NP gets marked by a particular marker (which is
commonly labelled "trigger marker", but which is really just a marker
reserved for the purpose of this syntactic operation), and the verb
receives an affix which corresponds with the semantic role of the NP.
The *interpretation* of such a marking on the NP may very well vary:
it may indicate that the NP is the topic, it may be used as a way to
emphasize the NP, or it may indicate that the NP is the focus of the
sentence. But this is in the semantic domain, and strictly speaking,
is orthogonal of the particular device (trigger marking in this case)
by which this NP has been marked.
While it would be interesting to discuss the semantic interpretations
of Tagalog's trigger marking, I think we can avoid a lot of confusion
if we stop conflating the two. The trigger marking is purely
syntactical, how such a marking is interpreted by Tagalog speakers
semantically is not to be confused with the mechanics of the marking
itself.
T
--
Two American lawyers went down to the beach for a swim. Seeing a canoe rental
nearby, one asked the other, "Roe, or Wade?"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:58:47 -0500
From: "Adam F." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Xinkutlan 1- Phonology
I like the phonology. I have one question. Why did you decide to
have /d/, /t/, /s/, /z/, /S/, /ts/, /dz/, and /tS/, but not /Z/, and /dZ/?
I can't wait to see more.
- Adam
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:01:03 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
Roger Mills wrote at 2004-11-18 12:35:01 (-0500)
> Ray Brown wrote:
>
> I agree totally; "trigger/target" seems to be adding a level of
> terminology that is confusing and unncessary, and to my knowledge
> those terms simply ARE NOT USED by Philippinists.
My researches into the matter online suggest that the "trigger"
terminology originates with, and certainly was popularised by Paul
Schachter. As John has mentioned, it's used in Schachter's chapter on
Tagalog in Comrie's _The World's Major Languages_. I've been unable
to discover whether it's used in Schachter and Otanes' _Tagalog
Reference Grammar_.
I'm limited to those papers I've been able to find online, but the
impression I get is that there simply is no strong consensus among
Philippinists on this matter.
See for example a footnote from this paper:
http://140.122.99.2/ntnuj/j46/j46.asp?appl=hs46-4.pdf
Note that there's a quote from Schachter on the choice of the term
"trigger".
| Some linguists prefer to use different terms instead of _focus_.
| Schachetr (1987:940), for example, prefers to use the term
| _trigger_ because it 'reflects the fact that the semantic role of
| the argument in question triggers the choice of the verbal affix.'
| Wouk (1996:369) also chooses the same term because for her, it
| seems to be a more neutral term. Chang (1997:iv), on the other
| hand, uses the term 'voice' because 'the so-called _focus_ in
| Austronesian literature diverges significantly from common
| focus... (and) should be identified as _voice_'.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:15:12 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What did Rodlox do? (was: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like
comments. :)
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: What did Rodlox do?
Me no know.
> The only thing that changes is _a_, _o_ and _u_. Therefore, I would deduce
> that _a_ = '(to) see', _o_ = '(to) fear' and _u_ = '(to) seek'. In other
> words that what you are doing with the three opening letters is using
> three different monosyllabic verbs.
>
> Of the other two words, I would consider there are two likely analyses:
> _ether_
interesting. fascinating. super-cool.
> I would be wishing that there were interlinear glosses :)
and there will be...once I understand what I'm doing, so I don't mislabel
something, thus thereby giving birth to a huge debate over the proper term
for what I had called [insert random name]. :)
sorry.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:19:15 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unqualified Appology
----- Original Message -----
From: Trent Pehrson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:02 PM
Subject: Unqualified Appology
> Very kind and patient list members,
hullo.
well, since you were nice enough to apologize (and say why you were
apologizing), I - for one - forgive you for your outburst.
> It won't happen again.
okay.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:03:05 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
----- Original Message -----
From: Sally Caves <>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andreas Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sooo, if my two roughly Earth-sized planets were tidally locked to one
> another, thus causing enormous tidal effects, would their mutual orbits
have
> to be elliptical to cause these tides? Because you say that if their
orbits
> are close to circular, the mutual tides would be unnoticeable. I want the
> tidal effects. (Am I misunderstanding you, as I think I am?) I also want
> them to present the same face to the other, but I could dispense with that
> feature. If they present the same face, each is slowing down the other's
> rotation, right?
over the course of geologic time, yes. by the same token, the Moon has
been spinning away from Earth for a long while now -- since at least the
death of the Dinosaurs.
> So their days and nights would be longer?
as I understand it, day and night (at least in single-planet settings) are
reliant upon the sunlight from the ignited primary. light reflected from
the Moon is negligable).
in this double system, I can imagine that, being bigger, there might be a
larger surface for light to reflect off the atmosphere/ice of one world, to
the eyes of anyone on the other world...on the other hand, the two worlds
can't be *too* close to one another.
so, even when part of one world is facing the sun (say, New York), it'll
still be having night-time, since the second world might be between the
first world and the sun. if they are
tidally-locked/geologically-syncronized or some such, some parts of the
world would be almost polar in their day-night cycles, experiencing "day"
only when the two worlds are *both* side-by-side & exposed to light from the
sun.
did that make any sense?
> Ooh. How could
> life survive in that condition? Would any one planet seem to rise and set
> for the other?
*everything* would rise and set...though, if they're locked to one another,
I'd guess that the folks on teh side facing the other world wouldn't have
much (if any) astronomy: no way to see stars, not with the light of that
other world, or the shadow of that same world, in the way.
> In brief, how would an elliptical orbit affect tides,
> rotation, etc.?
if they're not locked, the tides would follow the orbitting planet......if
they are locked, the sea level would be permanently higher facing the other
planet, though neap (solar) tides would still give at least a little wave
action.
> One planet would be slightly smaller than the other: I'm
> imagining a planet earth's size, and another planet bigger than Mars, but
> not as big as earth. Both support life. The bigger planet has larger seas
makes sense: more gravity (that's my assumption: size = mass, though it
may not be true).
welcome.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:42:05 +0000
From: Simon Richard Clarkstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: fonts
Lupin Wolfe wrote:
> OK, anyone on this list good at making fonts? A friend of mine is
> making a language called Umekan. It sort of has a Japanese feel and
> sound. I have a pic of the symbols the language uses. He doesn't
> know I'm doing this; I'm going to surprise him. Someone please
> answer me soon.
> THNX
In case you haven't encountered it, there is a neography mailing list:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
as well as the ever-present langmaker site:
http://www.langmaker.com/db/alp_a2z_index.htm
--
Simon Richard Clarkstone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:41:40 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dyirbal?
----- Original Message -----
From: Kit La Touche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: ergative + another introduction
> ok, ergativity is my obsession, and here's my understanding:
> syntactic ergativity, on the other hand, is much rarer - it's attested
> in dyirbal (an austronesian language, pronounced like gerbil, which
> amuses me *still*)
two questions -- where in Austronesia is/was Dyirbal spoken? &, aside from
Syntactic Ergativity, what other fun stuff does it and-or its language
subfamily (its closer relations within the broad Austroneasian Family) have?
*curious*
ps: does it have a learn-the-grammar website?
thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:15:29 +0100
From: Rene Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unqualified Appology
Trent Pehrson wrote:
> Very kind and patient list members,
>
> I want to apologize for the flame I posted a few days ago.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
Concerning my own reply, I think it wasn't very wise of me to respond in
such a cynical manner. Sorry for that.
Ren�
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:24:38 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: English l and Spanish ll
Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
> Can I be the first to nominate <_&> and <_u\>? or is it <_u\> and <_&>?
> I forget.
I'm not sure if I understand you. We were talking about the sign for "no
audible release". In your chart it is indeed "_}" - in IPA it is "combining
left angle above" U+031A. What's wrong, then?
-- Yitzik under the motto "No changes to CXS"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:25:24 +0100
From: Rene Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>
> From: Rene Uittenbogaard
>
> > Geoff Horswood wrote:
> >
> > > The bizarre thing about the greetings is that although they are
> > > formed as questions, most people (apart from some of the real
> > > traditionalists from the villages) treat them as interjections
> > > of the "Hello", "How do you do?" variety.
> >
> > While I was working at university, one of the people I worked with
> > went on a trip to America. He found it very disturbing that so
> > many people, even the supermarket personnel would ask him "How
> > do you do?"
>
> It's not clear to me why this should be any more bizarre than the
> use of questions for polite imperatives; Russians, e.g., would find
> that Western European habit particularly foreign.
In the Netherlands, we don't ask strangers about how they are doing;
and he knew that the supermarket personnel wasn't really interested in
him, they were just trying to b polite. So he simply found the
question too hypocritical.
> > So, refusing to answer, but trying to acknowledge that they were
> > just trying to be polite, he simply started answering
> > "Thank you" :)
>
> More appropriate would be "Fine, thank you" or the like.
Oh, he knew that. He was just refusing to play his role along.
Ren�
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:54:31 +1100
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: English l and Spanish ll
Isaac Penzev wrote:
>Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Can I be the first to nominate <_&> and <_u\>? or is it <_u\> and <_&>?
>>I forget.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure if I understand you. We were talking about the sign for "no
>audible release". In your chart it is indeed "_}" - in IPA it is "combining
>left angle above" U+031A. What's wrong, then?
>
>
Nothing's wrong with having _} --- as long as there's no _{. It's
confusing. Half the reason { and } were changed to & and u\ was because
of this...
>-- Yitzik under the motto "No changes to CXS"
>
>
Adding _{ to CXS seems like a change to me...
--
Tristan, under the motto "_{ over my dead body"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:54:51 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
Rodlox scripsit:
> so, even when part of one world is facing the sun (say, New York), it'll
> still be having night-time, since the second world might be between the
> first world and the sun. if they are
> tidally-locked/geologically-syncronized or some such, some parts of the
> world would be almost polar in their day-night cycles, experiencing "day"
> only when the two worlds are *both* side-by-side & exposed to light from the
> sun.
This wouldn't be true of the Earth-Moon system, even if the Moon were nearly
as big as the Earth, because the Earth-Moon system is tilted over about 23
degrees. This is why we only have 2-5 solar eclipses per year, Earth-wide,
and about the same number of lunar eclipses. For the Moon to be between
the Earth and the Sun, it has to be not only dark, but also crossing the
ecliptic (the line in the sky that the Sun appears to move on in the course
of a year).
A bigger Moon would mean longer eclipses, but not more of them.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:27:01 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is not a conlang and VOYNICH
Steg Belsky scripsit:
> A recent article in Wired Magazine interviewed someone who said that he
> proved it's all gibberish:
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/rugg.html?pg=1
Despite what it says in the _Wired_ article, Voynichologists in
general don't accept his results: they prove too little or too much.
Yes, Voynichese can be generated by fairly simple mechanical means
(the grilles) *if* you use enough of them. So could Classical Chinese
text, unfortunately. The methods Rugg actually uses are debunked briefly at
http://www.voynich.nu/solvers.html (search on the page for "Rugg").
http://www.voynich.nu is a good starting point for people interested in
the VM. There's a mailing list archived at http://www.voynich.net .
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration
is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was
under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than
two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today.
--Specht v. Netscape
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:57:04 EST
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dyirbal?
In a message dated 11/18/2004 5:09:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> syntactic ergativity, on the other hand, is much rarer - it's attested
>> in dyirbal (an austronesian language, pronounced like gerbil, which
>> amuses me *still*)
>two questions -- where in Austronesia is/was Dyirbal spoken?
It's not Austronesian; it's Australian. It's spoken in Queensland
[northeastern Australia].
Doug
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
